|Publication number||US7441208 B1|
|Application number||US 11/225,919|
|Publication date||Oct 21, 2008|
|Filing date||Sep 13, 2005|
|Priority date||Sep 13, 2005|
|Publication number||11225919, 225919, US 7441208 B1, US 7441208B1, US-B1-7441208, US7441208 B1, US7441208B1|
|Inventors||Ketan Padalia, Vaughn Betz, Vadim Gouterman|
|Original Assignee||Altera Corporation|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Patent Citations (17), Referenced by (1), Classifications (5), Legal Events (2)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
This invention relates to methods for designing integrated circuits.
Integrated circuit design is a complex task involving many steps. The process typically begins with a circuit design that is specified in terms having little or nothing to do with how it can be implemented in an integrated circuit. This relatively abstract, starting circuit design passes through a succession of steps that gradually move it more and more toward a design specification for building an actual integrated circuit. As this process proceeds, it is very common for responsibility for it to pass from the people who have done the initial circuit design to different people who do the work that is closer to production of the integrated circuit. These may be two different groups of people in one company or organization, or they may be people in two different companies or organizations.
Various points in the above-described process have been used as the “signoff” point between the circuit design group and the integrated circuit (“IC”) design group. If the signoff point is relatively early in the process, the circuit design group's task is relatively easy, but it may be difficult or impossible for the IC design group to produce an IC design (and therefore an IC) that meets all the expectations and specifications of the circuit design group. For example, timing constraints supplied by the circuit design group may not be achievable by the IC design group, which may force the IC design group to return the project to the first group for a redesign. This is generally very undesirable for reasons such as cost, delay, and the like. On the other hand, the later in the process the signoff point is, the more difficult and time-consuming the circuit designers' part of the task is for them. Making the signoff point very late in the process takes the circuit designers into parts of the process that they may be less familiar with and/or less skilled at. It does, however, tend to increase the probability that what they hand off to the IC design group will be implementable without any circuit redesign and will have timing performance close to what is expected and desired.
In accordance with this invention, a method of designing an integrated circuit to implement a user's circuit design has a signoff point after global routing has been done for an IC implementation of the circuit design, but before final detailed routing is done for that IC implementation. The signoff point of this invention may be either before or after a buffer insertion step. The signoff point of this invention may also be before or after a partial track assignment step. The signoff point of this invention may also be before or after a partial detailed router step.
Further features of the invention, its nature and various advantages, will be more apparent from the accompanying drawings and the following detailed description.
A typical process for designing an integrated circuit to implement a circuit design is shown in
In step 20 the user's circuit design (from step 10) is synthesized for the particular IC technology that it is desired to use for the IC implementation. For example, it may be desired to implement the circuit on a structured application-specific integrated circuit (a “structured ASIC”). Synthesis step 20 will then map user design 10 to a version of that design that is suitable for implementation in this type of technology. (Examples of structured ASIC technology are shown in such references as Chua et al. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/884,460, filed Jul. 2, 2004, Yuan et al. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/916,305, filed Aug. 11, 2004, Schleicher et al. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/050,607, filed Feb. 3, 2005, Yuan et al. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/101,949, filed Apr. 8, 2005, Pedersen et al. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/072,560, filed Mar. 3, 2005, Lim et al. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/141,867, filed May 31, 2005, Schleicher et al. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/097,633, filed Apr. 1, 2005, and Tan et al. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/141,941, filed May 31, 2005. It will be understood, however, that structured ASICs are mentioned only as an example, and that this invention is equally applicable to many other IC technologies such as ASSP (application-specific standard product), SoC (system on a chip), and even the design of integrated circuits that have little or no predetermined structure.)
The next step shown in
The next step is actual placement 40 of particular functions from synthesis 20 in particular functional circuit blocks within the large blocks dealt with in floorplanning 30.
The next step is laying out the routing 50 of all necessary connections to, from, and/or between the blocks placed in step 40.
The next step is verification 60, which may include such things as design rule checking (“DRC”) and layout vs. schematic (“LVS”) checking. The purpose of this step is to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that the specification for the IC that has been developed in the preceding steps will produce an IC that will perform the functions of the starting circuit design as intended. (Of course, some of the earlier steps may also have included verification and/or checking aspects for similar purposes.)
The final step is GDS signoff 70, in which the specification for the IC that has been developed and verified in the preceding steps is handed off in an industry-standard format such as GDS for actual manufacturing of the IC.
As was mentioned in the Background section of this specification, an IC design flow of the type shown in
As shown in
In step 140 the front-end development group compares the results of step 130 to characteristics that the circuit must have (e.g., whether the results of step 130 show that the circuit developed thus far will meet timing and power constraints that have been specified for the circuit). If the result of step 140 is negative, the front-end development group returns to step 120 to try a new development of user design 10. When the result of step 140 is positive, signoff step 150 is performed to transfer what has been developed by the front-end development group to the back-end development group.
In step 220 (and subsequent
Global routing 52 refers to a relatively general level of routing decision-making and assignment. For example, global routing 52 involves deciding in general how connections to, from, and/or between circuit blocks that have already been placed (step 40) on the “real estate” of the IC will be routed, without deciding specifically which circuit tracks in various bundles of possible circuit tracks will actually be used to make each such connection. An analogy in going between two points in a city would be deciding that, to go from point A to B, one will first go straight east from point A for a certain distance, then one will go straight north to point B. The actual streets that will be used for these two legs of the trip are not yet decided on. (That is left for subsequent decision by the detailed router.) What are important at the global routing stage are things like the number and types(s) of conductor segments that will be used to make a connection, the lengths of those conductor segments, etc.
Even without the additional results of detailed routing (subsequent step 56), the results of global routing step 52 provide a great deal of information that can be important to such things as the timing performance of the IC design being developed. Remember that before signoff step 150 is performed in
After signoff step 150, the back-end development group begins its work by performing detailed router step 56 to complete the routing process. (Note that steps 52 and 56 in
After completing step 56, back-end development continues with steps 60 and 70 (similar to the similarly numbered steps in
The flow shown in
A possible modification of flows of the type illustrated by
Another illustrative embodiment in accordance with the invention is shown in
Again, the more that can be done in the left-hand column of steps prior to signoff in
It will be understood that although people or groups are sometimes referred to herein, the methods that are the subject of this invention are largely automated. Conventional or substantially conventional software tools can be used for this automation. The various people using these software tools are mentioned largely for the purpose of explaining that various different organizations are typically involved and are therefore responsible for different parts of the task.
This is useful to explain why the invention is needed (e.g., for reasons of efficiency, expertise, cost, etc.), and especially the disadvantages of and penalties associated with having to move back upstream from the back-end development group to the front-end development group (e.g., via path 242 in
It will be understood that the foregoing is only illustrative of the principles of the invention, and that various modifications can be made by those skilled in the art without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention. For example, although development of a design for a structured ASIC has been mentioned as an illustration, the invention is equally applicable to doing designs for many other types of ICs.
|Cited Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US5854924 *||Aug 8, 1996||Dec 29, 1998||Globetrotter Software, Inc.||Static debugging tool and method|
|US5867399 *||Apr 21, 1997||Feb 2, 1999||Lsi Logic Corporation||System and method for creating and validating structural description of electronic system from higher-level and behavior-oriented description|
|US6470482 *||Aug 5, 1996||Oct 22, 2002||Lsi Logic Corporation||Method and system for creating, deriving and validating structural description of electronic system from higher level, behavior-oriented description, including interactive schematic design and simulation|
|US6775808 *||Aug 3, 2000||Aug 10, 2004||Monterey Design Systems, Inc.||Method and apparatus for generating sign-off prototypes for the design and fabrication of integrated circuits|
|US7006962 *||Nov 29, 2001||Feb 28, 2006||Lsi Logic Corporation||Distributed delay prediction of multi-million gate deep sub-micron ASIC designs|
|US7269815 *||Jun 7, 2004||Sep 11, 2007||Synopsys, Inc.||Modifying a design to reveal the data flow of the design in order to create a more favorable input for block placement|
|US7275232 *||Apr 1, 2005||Sep 25, 2007||Altera Corporation||Methods for producing equivalent field-programmable gate arrays and structured application specific integrated circuits|
|US20040006584 *||Aug 8, 2001||Jan 8, 2004||Ivo Vandeweerd||Array of parallel programmable processing engines and deterministic method of operating the same|
|US20040181717 *||Feb 28, 2003||Sep 16, 2004||Robert Madge||Adaptive defect based testing|
|US20050156612 *||Dec 16, 2004||Jul 21, 2005||Peter Pochmuller||Test system and test structure for testing an integrated circuit and an integrated circuit having a test structure|
|US20050229141 *||Apr 7, 2004||Oct 13, 2005||Jamil Kawa||Method and apparatus for creating a mask-programmable architecture from standard cells|
|US20050268258 *||Jun 1, 2005||Dec 1, 2005||Tera Systems, Inc.||Rule-based design consultant and method for integrated circuit design|
|US20050268267 *||Jun 1, 2005||Dec 1, 2005||Tera Systems, Inc.||Methods and systems for mixed-mode physical synthesis in electronic design automation|
|US20050268269 *||Jun 1, 2005||Dec 1, 2005||Tera Systems, Inc.||Methods and systems for cross-probing in integrated circuit design|
|US20060225008 *||Apr 1, 2005||Oct 5, 2006||Schleicher James G Ii||Methods for producing equivalent field-programmable gate arrays and structured application-specific integrated circuits|
|US20070033557 *||Aug 8, 2005||Feb 8, 2007||Byrn Jonathan W||Method for creating constraints for integrated circuit design closure|
|US20070294659 *||Aug 16, 2007||Dec 20, 2007||Altera Corporation||Methods for producing equivalent field-programmable gate arrays and structured application-specific integrated circuits|
|Citing Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US8151232 *||Apr 10, 2009||Apr 3, 2012||Oracle America, Inc.||Repeater driven routing methodology|
|U.S. Classification||716/129, 716/106|
|Sep 13, 2005||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: ALTERA CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:PADALIA, KETAN;BETZ, VAUGHN;GOUTERMAN, VADIM;REEL/FRAME:017000/0307
Effective date: 20050825
|Mar 23, 2012||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 4